Strategically targeting some fuel deposits may have an outsized impact.

Those with a desire to see a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels could do worse than to buy up reserves, according to a paper published this month. Researcher Bard Harstad argues that buying and holding extraction rights to fossil fuels is a more effective means of curbing their use than legislating to reduce demand.

At first glance it looks like a novel approach, though perhaps an obvious one when you think of it. For example, coal left in the ground cannot emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so the more you buy and leave there, the more emissions are prevented. But tempting as it is to present the research in these terms, Harstad's argument is actually rather more subtle, and involves influencing fossil fuel markets—and not necessarily by buying in bulk.

The problem with demand- and supply-side policy

A fundamental problem with adopting a "demand-side mindset" that implements policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption is that not everyone takes part, Harstad argues. An international agreement between coalition countries to curb oil consumption will initially have the desired effect of reducing overall demand, but this will lower the price of oil, giving a strong incentive to countries outside of the agreement to buy and use more.

On the other hand, Harstad argues, if an international agreement decides to limit oil extraction and supply, the price will go up, and countries outside of the agreement are likely to churn out more for export.

"Both on the demand-side and the supply-side the result is carbon leakage, which is an increase in pollution abroad relative to the emission-reduction at home," says Harstad, who is associate professor of managerial economics & decision sciences at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. Carbon leakage describes the process by which carbon-cutting measures in one location cause knock-on emissions elsewhere. The term is defined by the International Panel on Climate Change as "the increase in CO2 emissions outside the countries taking domestic mitigation action divided by the reduction in the emissions of these countries."

Harstad claims these leakages are in the order of 5 to 25 percent, but that they can be higher when small coalitions execute ambitious policies over longer timeframes. Though some leakage may be mitigated by trade tariffs, this only limits and distorts trade further, he argues. But it's on the supply side that the answer lies, he argues.

An equalizing effect

Harstad's solution is for coalition countries to buy up extraction rights in countries outside of such agreements—"third countries," in his terminology. And though this has the obvious benefit of preventing emissions from those fossil fuels, there are rather more far-reaching implications.

Coalition countries will naturally focus on marginal deposits least profitable for host countries, because these can be had the most cheaply. After a third country has sold off the rights to its marginal deposits, Harstad argues that its supply is less sensitive to fluctuations in global fuel price. Coalition countries are then able to limit their own supplies without the undesirable effect that third countries will increase theirs. The price of fuel is equalized universally. Harstad goes so far as to assert that the equalized price is high enough that even third countries would be compelled to pursue alternative energy technology, and sign up to coalition agreements.

"The analysis shows that progress on international climate policy is best achieved by simply utilizing the existing market for extraction rights," Harstad concludes.

Back in the real world...

But Harstad's paper contains no real-world examples of how the system might work, the scale of reserves required, and therefore the costs associated with snapping up the rights. And as such it has been criticized for a lack of practicality.

Environment & Energy Publishingquotes National Mining Association Luke Popovich as crediting Harstad's approach as imaginative, while also describing it as "a thoroughly preposterous and utterly impractical idea." With fossil fuel demand set to increase, and be met largely by developing nations "reliant" on fossil fuel revenue, Popovich calls this, perhaps not unjustifiably (if not wholly objectively), "an extremely difficult hill to climb." Silver bullet it may not be, but that's not to say Harstad's theory is entirely useless either. It remains to be seen if policy-makers will prove willing to give his ideas a try.

Harstad's study, Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy, was published in the latest edition of the Journal of Political Economy.

79 Reader Comments

I could easily see legislation being introduced that would prevent people from buying up reserves solely to just stop them from being used, and with no financially viable solution available to replace them such laws would have a lot of support.

In most jurisdictions I believe the citizens own the resource and industry simply buys the right to extract and sell the resource. The industry then remits royalty payments on the extracted resources. The process of buying rights varies, but in Alberta I believe the process includes nominating an area, actually a volume since they've introduced the ability to buy rights between specific depths over an area (different geological structures have different depths). One the volume is nominated, a public blind auction is held for extraction rights. The winner doesn't have cart blanche on the resources. If they do not show activity towards extraction, the rights terminate and others can re-nominate the volume for auction.

So buying the reserves to hold them out of use is impossible - you aren't buying the resource, you are buying a time-constrained volume-constrained right to extract the resource.

"When dragons belch and hippos fleeMy thoughts, Ankh-Morpork, are of theeLet others boast of martial dashFor we have boldly fought with cashWe own all your helmets, we own all your shoes.We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose.Morporkia! Morporkia!Morporkia owns the day!We can rule you wholesaleTouch us and you'll pay.

Eventually, the "third countries" will just nationalize the resource and exploit it anyway.

Exactly this.

The supply-side approach is similar to what many environmental conservation groups do with undeveloped habitat -- either purchase it outright to prevent it from being developed, or purchase an easement on the property that prohibits future development. But I think the monetary incentive to "cheat" is far greater for oil rights than it is for development rights, and monitoring and enforcement both strike me as significantly harder for oil/gas/coal rights than for development.

Buying up what can essentially be considered a future ability to pollute so that no one else can use it has been around for awhile. The Straight Dope mentions a similar concept from a 1993 article, about clean air rights rather than the actual pollutants.

Considering someone tried to do this or well he signed up for the lease auction in order to drive up the price, ended up winning, and is now going to prison for it, I don't think this is a viable strategy,

I want to see a real push to green initiatives, but rather than shooting society in the foot by driving up fossil fuel prices, how about you get out there and start policing the green movement itself first.

Right now, most green technologies are over encumbered by the fact that many are not in fact green. There are a lot of fake green, fake sustainable products and ideas being passed around by what boil down to marketing and buzzwords. The biggest thing hurting the green movement is the movement itself as well as an indifference to actually becoming educated about physics and chemistry to a degree where you can see obvious shills and garbage. It's like all the youtube videos of perpetual motion machines based around magnetic arrays and such.

Secondly, the green technologies which have made it to market are generally marginal shells of their potential. Greater investment in developing carbon fiber automotive manufacturing would save more fossil fuel than any of the existing battery technologies. Reduction of automobile weight should actually be the chief concern of environmentalists at the moment since it is the area in which the most can be done right now, today. No, I'm not talking about Smart cars, they are inherently unsafe because of their size, center of gravity, and weight are all poorly engineered. I'm talking about designing full sized, structurally sound sedans which shed 500 kg of weight through the use of composites, smaller doors, better engineering as a whole. The Honda Insight is about the only vehicle which so far really tried to hit this mark.

The whole idea of trying to corner or nudge the fossil fuel market is complete derpity derp on several levels. The argument that the class of people with the financial resources to invest coupled with misguided idealism should wreck the economy for their convictions is inherently immoral. Remember, it is the poorest in developed nations who shoulder the greatest burden of such vice. Gasoline going to $5-8/gal doesn't hurt someone making $200k/year but it devastates the family of four making $50k. These are the same people who won't have the financial option to purchase a shiny new hybrid or EV, much less invest in the personal infrastructure necessary to own it. How many lower income apartments do you see setting up EV charging stations in their complex? These are property management companies that can barely keep the hot water heaters and refrigerators working. The people you would hurt the most are the very people whose work provides the comfortable living for the rest.

What ignorant hubris to suggest such malicious action. This doesn't even extend to the global scale, where such action is only likely to make China and India more apt to violent nationalism and even imperialism in the interest of securing economic growth and security. The sick part is that the temptation to divest of the resources by and investor, to cash it out once the prices have skyrocketed, is implicit. Even if one were to hold the rights their entire life, what would insure their heirs would not cash out afterward?

No, the entire argument comes down to the whining and childishness of an entitled class completely ignorant of how their actions actually harm the world more than help.

Put your money where your mouth is and invest in real environmental research and development. Take the time to learn the difference between whimsical fantasies and real technology. Want to promote development of technology? Buy products from companies doing real research, like IBM instead of Apple. Invest in engineering the future instead of trying to watch the world burn.

There's another way to do it is to locked up all the geologists and burn all materials related to geology. A-team is for hire. A bit extreme, you say? Yes, but it's more effective than buying up the reserves. We can have the Cubans do it.

In almost all countries it is legal for the government to forcibly buy or simply take any land or resource it wants (called Eminent domain or resumption/compulsory acquisition), so while buying the rights to reserves might seem to work... it wouldn't. The governments don't just want the rights money, they want people working those sites for the flow on effect to the rest of their economies, so they'll let them sit for a little while, but the second it looks like the people will start complaining about the higher cost of living or a crappy economy they will snap them back up and sell them to people who will use them.

Oh I agree reducing demand is a stupid idea, it simply wont work, nor IMO should it, we as a species have fought damn hard to get out out of subsistence living and into the land of plenty, only idiot hippies want to go back to "nature"; here's a fun fact from someone who has actually lived and grew up in a "natural" setting... nature is not nice, cute, or friendly... nature is a stone cold bitch that doesn't give two craps about you, and will kill you off in a heartbeat, she makes the most rabid political extremist look like a cuddly teddy bear.

No, what green freaks should be doing instead of going on and on about crap like "earth hour" is pumping all that money they wasted on feel good ad-space and "bike to work!" crap into technological development; it's obvious that "renewable" energy like solar or wind isn't going to supply enough to meet demand, so we need something clean that will, so put the money there!

It always amuses me that the most rabid eco-people who want to burn down coal power stations are so against nuclear power, like it's the devil... it's cleaner then coal (hell it produces less radioactivity) by a long shot, and unlike wind or solar it can actually produce a lot of power... yet they'd rather harp on lost causes rather then do something constructive!

I could easily see legislation being introduced that would prevent people from buying up reserves solely to just stop them from being used, and with no financially viable solution available to replace them such laws would have a lot of support.

If there were no economically viable replacements wouldn't this be reflected in the price of the reserves? Basically, trying to corner a market gets exponentially more expensive.

belrick wrote:

In most jurisdictions I believe the citizens own the resource and industry simply buys the right to extract and sell the resource.

Wouldn't this only be applicable on public lands? Granted, this might cover the majority of the fossil fuel resources.

Overall I agree with much of your statements (educate yourself, lighten cars, invest in the right places, etc)... though I disagree with some (the green movement is bad - it's not the movement that's bad, it's those taking avantage of peoples good intentions that is, hiking fossil fuel prices is 'shooting us in the foot' - it makes green investment more attractive).

But I wanted to comment on this:

aaronb1138 wrote:

Remember, it is the poorest in developed nations who shoulder the greatest burden of such vice. Gasoline going to $5-8/gal doesn't hurt someone making $200k/year but it devastates the family of four making $50k. These are the same people who won't have the financial option to purchase a shiny new hybrid or EV, much less invest in the personal infrastructure necessary to own it. How many lower income apartments do you see setting up EV charging stations in their complex?

1) A "charging station" can be a simple household outlet. 120 or 240. Some even go 480. There are many laws in place that force apartment owners to allow this type of use. The whole 'charging station' thing is a product of the overly-saftey-concious public conspiring with a car-culture that thinks to 'fill up' a car it's got to look like a gas pump....who, for some reason, no longer thinks that simply plugging in something is 'safe' or that it could be used to transfer electricity to a car.

2) EV's are actually significantly cheaper in total cost of ownership than their gas-powered cousins. My DIY EV costs me 2cents per mile to drive vs 10-20 cents a mile for a standard gas powered car. Over the course of the lifespan of my battery I'll spend 5k on electricity.... over the same number of miles for an above-average-mpg car gas will cost 40,000. And that doesn't count the 2500 in oil changes nor the other monies spend on other maintenance costs that electric engines don't have.

3) You are right that the increased cost basic requirements hurts those at the lower socio-economic strata more than those at the top. However, there is also the option of changing your habits; and that costs nothing. I moved 2 miles from my work, I walk to the the grocery store, I have a garden, I telecommute when possible, etc. ... and before you say "yeah, but in America we have to drive!" ... I live in the 'burbs' alongside the rest of America. When I see some person driving a huge truck 40 miles to their computer programming job each day complaining about gas prices, I lose a lot of sympathy.

So, the choice is for the populace to subjugate themselves; either to big oil, or to government. Forgive me for pointing out that the entire premise is flawed. You don't have to allow yourself to be oppressed by either.

And this is why the climate change movement is doomed, or at least in the moribund state it's in; where less and less Americans care. Given that a significant portion of the populace want to curb carbon energy use, and simultaneously assist alternative energy sources; there's a simple solution.

Tax carbon. But not new taxes; *shift* some of the tax burden to primary carbon. One would assume that would mean a cut in income taxes, our primary revenue source now. Everybody gets what they want. Liberals get $5 a gallon gas; with a good part of it flowing directly into government coffers. Conservatives get an income tax cut. Everybody could be happy, but that's not what politicians really want, is it?

Biking to work has so many advantages, both to society and the biker, that to call it crap seems a bit .... stupid? (I was looking for a word that meant something like "anti-hippi anger and bias-induced" and couldn't think of one. Sorry, not meant as an ad-hom.) Perhaps you should select a better example of wasted 'green-movement' energies... The anti-nuclear plant issue, for instance, is a great place to hit the green movements hypocrisy.

Biking to work has so many advantages, both to society and the biker, that to call it crap seems a bit .... stupid? (I was looking for a word that meant something like "anti-hippi anger and bias-induced" and couldn't think of one. Sorry, not meant as an ad-hom.) Perhaps you should select a better example of wasted 'green-movement' energies... The anti-nuclear plant issue, for instance, is a great place to hit the green movements hypocrisy.

A lot of the "bike to work" stuff IS crap... When I was working I had hippy freaks hassle me to "bike to work"... in winter... when it was 3/4c (often lower!) at 7 in the morning and I lived 18 kilometres away from work...

I'm sorry but I'm not freezing my extremities off just so I can impress some green-wannabe who's daddy brought her a nice apartment right near the CBD...

Then there is the fact that I literally can not ride a pushbike since I've got a congenital hip defect and have walked with a cane since I was 26... yeah... I'm just a bit sick of "bike to work! go on! it's good for you!"... I swear if I hadn't needed that pay cheque I'd have brained her with my cane...

If you want to limit the supply and use of fossil fuels the best way to accomplish it is have government put price controls on gasoline and limit it to something like 2 dollars a gallon.

That is the classic approach that will always work on any commodity you want to massively reduce the ability for people to consumer it.

Want to starve people? Put price controls on food.

What to have black outs common in the USA?Put price controls on electricity.

Anytime you want to limit consumption and massively increase the poverity and suffering of the population, like the article suggests, wage and price controls as government policies is one of the most effective approaches discovered so far. It has proven to be massively successful at inducing scarcity and lowering the quality of living _every_single_time_ it's been used in the past.

Of course most are so clueless they wonder why this would be the reality.

edit:

hint:This only works when you require prices to be cheaper then market prices. If the government forced the price of gasoline to be at $1 dollar a gallon this would result in massive deficiencies in the supply of gasoline and it would require most people to abandon most of their traveling. Because after a short while everybody that produces and distributes the fuel would go out of business.

Oh I agree reducing demand is a stupid idea, it simply wont work, nor IMO should it, we as a species have fought damn hard to get out out of subsistence living and into the land of plenty

Sure, nature is a bitch. Does this mean that we have unlimited resources? No. And even if we had, there is a limit to the quantity of energy we could use (without boiling the planet), regardless of the source of said energy. It's not even climate science, at a certain point it becomes a problem of mere physics, basic thermodynamics.So, one can argue if it will happen in 10 years, 100 years, or whatever, but eventually we will have to stop growing our demand of energy. It's not hippies, it's maths.

I agree with much of what you said, but in practice at the moment it is a bit of a no-go. Many apartment complexes would be difficult to keep kids from screwing around and disconnecting / cutting your line out to the car. Then you are stranded, calling for rides, losing jobs, etcetera. I would be more in favor of requiring apartments and similar to have X number of charging stations per Y number of residents or units. They don't need to be full garage stations, just dedicated parking spots with a post / sign, some kind of authentication / billing system, and a physically hardened power line. Plug-in hybrid and EV makers should implement some kind of key based locking system for plugs to further prevent tampering.

As for the decreased long term cost, the only way I see technology like hybrids and EVs making it to the poor in the US at least, is through a federally funded HUD/FHA like arrangement. Setup would basically include low income requirements, federally backed low interest loans with little or no down payment, and last, federal requirements for the auto maker's warranty to run the length of the loan (5-6 years regardless of mileage). A system like that would definitely be vastly better investment than the farce which was Cash for Clunkers.

The lower class will not adopt hybrids / EVs on their own because of the inherently lower level of education and their very reasonable, if exaggerated, fears about longevity (of current technologies). Many own cars which are 10+ years old and keep them for 4-8 years as opposed to the typical EV/hybrid purchaser who rarely owns a primary vehicle more than 4-6 years old. In the long run though, I absolutely agree the poor would be better served owning greener, cheaper to operated and easier to maintain hybrids and EVs.

I agree completely regarding the lack of sympathy for fools who drive unnecessarily large vehicles ridiculous distances to work though. I'm also in favor though of making companies shoulder a greater burden for vehicles and travel required for employees to accomplish their work, such as trucks or vans, though that largely involves individuals' decisions to work for such employers.

Oh I agree reducing demand is a stupid idea, it simply wont work, nor IMO should it, we as a species have fought damn hard to get out out of subsistence living and into the land of plenty

Sure, nature is a bitch. Does this mean that we have unlimited resources? No. And even if we had, there is a limit to the quantity of energy we could use (without boiling the planet), regardless of the source of said energy. It's not even climate science, at a certain point it becomes a problem of mere physics, basic thermodynamics.So, one can argue if it will happen in 10 years, 100 years, or whatever, but eventually we will have to stop growing our demand of energy. It's not hippies, it's maths.

So? We get off this rock and spread out... maybe if we stopped pissing around having little wars, maintain nuclear arsenals 5000 strong (Looking at you America! You really need 5000 freaking nukes???).... and started pushing out into space we'd solve these problems... but no...

In many situations in the US, one can buy land but they cannot buy the mineral rights. Most people or companies who own the mineral rights seem to want to exploit the resource and would sell the rights to someone who has no intention of mining the resource. The price would have to exceed the value of the resource by a significant amount for anyone to sell. Also if the government really wants the resource to be mined, the will find a way to do so. On the other hand, slowing down the consumption of oil, gas or coal and leaving the in the ground does save them for future generations while reducing, but not eliminating greenhouse gases..

I want to see a real push to green initiatives, but rather than shooting society in the foot by driving up fossil fuel prices, how about you get out there and start policing the green movement itself first. ...Want to promote development of technology? Buy products from companies doing real research, like IBM instead of Apple. Invest in engineering the future instead of trying to watch the world burn.

wow. I could not have said it better myself. ty. EDIT:and I mean the whole post. I rather not repost it.

As for the decreased long term cost, the only way I see technology like hybrids and EVs making it to the poor in the US at least, is through a federally funded HUD/FHA like arrangement. Setup would basically include low income requirements, federally backed low interest loans with little or no down payment, and last, federal requirements for the auto maker's warranty to run the length of the loan (5-6 years regardless of mileage). A system like that would definitely be vastly better investment than the farce which was Cash for Clunkers.

Why on earth would you want that? Electric cars and hybrid electric cars are terrible for the environment.

A person who goes out and buys a used car from the 1960's and fixes it up is still decades ahead in terms of 'greenness' then a person who goes out and buys a brand new Honda Hybrid. They will consume much less resources, have less of a impact on the environment, and use less energy then it takes to produce and maintain a modern car.

If people actually cared enough about the environment to understand engineering and what it actually takes to produce automobiles would encourage people to go out and buy small engine diesel vehicles. A small car, lightweight car with a 700 or 1200cc diesel motor that is designed to travel at a top speed of 45mph would EASILY get you a 100mpg using modern techniques. A family-type sedan or minivan that can drive on the highways will still get you actual better mileage then a hybrid-ev can.

Of course our government is currently shitting all over diesel motors right now. Making them worse, making them more expensive and slower. Also they are ruining diesel fuel with special requirements, formulations and taxation.

Just like the government taxed LPG out of the market once people started converting their vehicles to that in large numbers.

So? We get off this rock and spread out... maybe if we stopped pissing around having little wars, maintain nuclear arsenals 5000 strong (Looking at you America! You really need 5000 freaking nukes???).... and started pushing out into space we'd solve these problems... but no...

Your optimism is heartening. However, I would not bet the future of the entire human race on the chance of colonizing the galaxy BEFORE we hit the limits of the energy available here on Earth (a point after which there will be a lot less resources to be invested in space programs, regardless of other minor factors such as wars etc).

One problem: aren't the auctions for the resources on public lands restricted so that only industries are allowed to bid?

I know this sounds crazy, but I am pretty sure this is why Tim DeChristopher was arrested and is serving two years in prison for bidding on public land. The auction was restricted so only Oil and Gas company personnel could bid, but he entered the auction and bid anyway.

A lot of the "bike to work" stuff IS crap... When I was working I had hippy freaks hassle me to "bike to work"... in winter... when it was 3/4c (often lower!) at 7 in the morning and I lived 18 kilometres away from work...

1) Above freezing is hardly cold. Shoot, if you are putting any effort into it, it's MORE pleasurable to ride at 40F than it is at 80F. I do agree that riding in the rain or in an actually cold day (say, -10F) is miserable and in those situations taking a car is great. But that doesn't mean biking is bad on all the other days.

2) It's not anyone else's fault that you decide to live stupidly far from work -- yet we are forced to deal with (any pay for) the environmental, quality-of-life, and political consequences.

Quote:

Then there is the fact that I literally can not ride a pushbike since I've got a congenital hip defect and have walked with a cane since I was 26...

The face you can't ride a bike doesn't mean riding a bike to work isn't great on a TON of levels (financial, health, environmental, community, etc). The same way touch-screen phones don't suddenly suck just because I'm blind.

2) It's not anyone else's fault that you decide to live stupidly far from work -- yet we are forced to deal with (any pay for) the environmental, quality-of-life, and political consequences.

Do you actually work for a living or anything like that?

18KM is NOT far from work. 11 miles is perfectly reasonable distance. (it is certainly within bicycling distance IMO)

Anyways....

One of the best things about the automobile is that it solved a major problem with unemployment. Prior to the to the automobile people's ability to seek work was limited by the distance they could cover in the morning. It didn't matter if across the county people were hiring for a new factory job because there was no way in hell you could afford to move there to get it. So with the advent of personal mobility it contributed massively to the ability of people to find work, it increased wages people could demand because it allowed for a much more competitive labor market place.

If you take away from that you will have a dramatic negative effect on the ability for people to seek work and weaken massively the negotiating power of the workforce.

You will have lower wages, increased unemployment, and significant negative economic impact.

Poor people can't afford to care about the environment, btw. Being able to care about the environment and seek ways to improve the world around you comes only AFTER you are able to provide for your family. If you care about the environment it is obvious that raising the standard of living for most of the world's population is going to be a very high priority. People without significant enough capital will find the only way to make a living is by abusing local natural resources (such as burning down rain forest or creating vast salt fields for mining lithium)

Why on earth would you want that? Electric cars and hybrid electric cars are terrible for the environment.

A person who goes out and buys a used car from the 1960's and fixes it up is still decades ahead in terms of 'greenness' then a person who goes out and buys a brand new Honda Hybrid. They will consume much less resources, have less of a impact on the environment, and use less energy then it takes to produce and maintain a modern car.

If people actually cared enough about the environment to understand engineering and what it actually takes to produce automobiles would encourage people to go out and buy small engine diesel vehicles. A small car, lightweight car with a 700 or 1200cc diesel motor that is designed to travel at a top speed of 45mph would EASILY get you a 100mpg using modern techniques. A family-type sedan or minivan that can drive on the highways will still get you actual better mileage then a hybrid-ev can.

Of course our government is currently shitting all over diesel motors right now. Making them worse, making them more expensive and slower. Also they are ruining diesel fuel with special requirements, formulations and taxation.

Just like the government taxed LPG out of the market once people started converting their vehicles to that in large numbers.

I've made the same point many times about energy investment towards making a new car versus fixing old ones. I do agree with the majority of your statement. I was livid with the terms of Cash for Clunkers to destroy instead of at the very least part-out the vehicles.

I have made the very same point about hybrids / EVs being environmentally bad, in particular the use of platinum / palladium group metals for batteries. I have several posts previously along these lines.

My earlier statement about smaller doors on cars was actually aimed at the root issue with current automotive design in which much of the structural weight is due to consumer demand that the entire side of the vehicle open. Every 5-7 years another university engineering department comes up with a complete automobile design which uses aircraft style rib & spar construction and saves over 1000 lbs which they think is some kind of game changer for the industry. Then the automobile makers look at the design and laugh again because the doors are too small for consumers to be satisfied. It's part of why I laugh so heartily at engineering majors, because 9/10 of their great "new" ideas were tried 50 years ago, and they would know this if they studied just a little of engineering history in their field (my favorite to point at is the Tucker Torpedo).

If / When the technology matures to actually being good, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have a better subsidy system for "green" automobiles, especially biased towards the poor. As it stands, the current subsidies only benefit the upper middle class and wealthy, parallel to the silliness of the current state regarding residential solar panels.

Long term financial savings would be my only advocacy for hybrids / EVs in the hands of the poor. That is why I included the singular deal breaking (for auto makers) caveat, a warranty running the term of the loan.

You are right that the increased cost basic requirements hurts those at the lower socio-economic strata more than those at the top. However, there is also the option of changing your habits; and that costs nothing. I moved 2 miles from my work, I walk to the the grocery store, I have a garden, I telecommute when possible, etc. ... and before you say "yeah, but in America we have to drive!" ... I live in the 'burbs' alongside the rest of America. When I see some person driving a huge truck 40 miles to their computer programming job each day complaining about gas prices, I lose a lot of sympathy.

Not everyone has the "changing your habits" option though. It's nice to be able to afford to live close to one's job, but a vast number of commuters don't drive long distances because they want to, they drive long distances because they have to--relative economies even within neighboring counties can be such that working in an area which pays more while living in an area which costs less is often the best way to make ends meet.

That's why increasing gas prices is an easy way to harm the middle class in the U.S.--many families live within the margins of the middle class instead of the working poor precisely because they can take advantage of this sort of income/living expense arbitrage. Where I live, counties in Northern Virginia have many great jobs but rent/mortgage prices can be twice as much as those just a county away--and that situation is not uncommon.

Artificially inflating fossil fuel prices is such a sensitive subject in the U.S. for precisely this reason. Commuting helped to build the middle class, and removing its cost advantage will create more working poor. They would be very displeased at anyone responsible, and vote accordingly. I find it amazing that the green left is so ideologically wedded to raising fossil fuel prices across the board, because it's just about the most politically naive position they could take. If they actually succeed to any degree, the political consequences would be devastating to the left for decades to come.

Even a relatively small trespass which doesn't directly affect prices, like blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline, is going to have an effect at the polls this election season. If something like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade ever did pass, any negative economic outcomes from that point forward would be blamed by the right on the carbon tax regime and the left would lose important elections until the offending legislation were eventually repealed.